A high-stakes legal battle is set to unfold in a California federal district court over whether the U.S. military unlawfully engaged in civilian law enforcement during its deployment to Los Angeles in June. This trial comes amid escalating tensions between state officials and the Trump administration regarding military involvement in domestic issues.
California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta argue that the deployment of troops in response to protests following immigration law enforcement actions was illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th-century law restricting military involvement in civilian law enforcement.
The legal proceedings, starting today at 10 a.m., are being closely monitored, especially as they may have implications for future military deployments to handle domestic unrest. President Donald Trump has expressed willingness to use military resources to ensure safety during events such as the upcoming 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles, suggestively indicating potential continued military involvement in civilian matters.
On August 5, as part of ongoing military operations, the Department of Defense ordered the deployment of troops in California for an additional 90 days. This decision occurred shortly after a contingent of Marines, initially deployed to Los Angeles, had officially left, and coincided with the demobilization of much of the National Guard.
The California legal team contends that evidence, which has been partially redacted due to a court order, suggests that the military engaged in actions that constitute law enforcement, which would contravene the Posse Comitatus Act. They are seeking a judicial ruling to prevent the Trump administration from continuing these actions.
In contrast, the Department of Justice, under President Trump’s administration, is defending the military’s position, asserting that the actions taken do not constitute law enforcement but support federal efforts, such as immigration enforcement or the protection of federal properties.
The Insurrection Act, which would legally allow military forces to partake in law enforcement activities during a time of insurrection, was not invoked by President Trump during this situation. Despite this, military presence persisted in a manner that California argues resembles unlawful occupation.
This trial derives from a lawsuit initiated by Governor Newsom in June, prompted by President Trump’s unilateral decision to take control of the National Guard following heightened protests in the Los Angeles area related to federal immigration actions. During the June protests, approximately 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines were sent to the city.
Relations between Newsom and Trump have sharply deteriorated, marked by accusations from the governor likening Trump to a failing dictator, while Trump floated the idea of arresting Newsom. The initial court ruling favored Newsom by ordering the return of the National Guard, but a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel overrode that decision, allowing federal control of troops under the rationale that it was permissible for them to protect federal properties and personnel amidst the protests.
Judge Charles Breyer is presiding over this case, allowing California’s legal representatives to gather testimonies and documents from Trump officials to build their case. California’s arguments claim that the federal government’s use of military forces in this context is unprecedented and raises serious concerns about the legal implications of militarized civilian law enforcement.
Examples detailed in California attorneys’ findings suggest the military significantly crossed legal boundaries. One notable instance cited involved National Guard soldiers reportedly accompanying federal immigration officials on approximately 75% of their operations. Furthermore, troops allegedly formed security perimeters during a law enforcement action at a cannabis facility, effectively detaining civilians within.
Additionally, California attorneys have pointed to troop activity during protests at MacArthur Park, claiming military personnel conducted actions that would typically fall under civilian law enforcement roles. They also highlight incidents where military members detained protesters, further reinforcing their case against the administration’s practices.
The Trump administration counters these claims on several fronts. They assert that Posse Comitatus constitutes a criminal statute inappropriate for civil lawsuits and argue that the military’s actions were justified in protecting federal property and personnel. The Justice Department has maintained that the military’s supportive role during immigration law enforcement operations does not constitute direct law enforcement.
Federal lawyers further argue California lacks standing in the lawsuit, insisting that the President has the authority to deploy troops as necessary under existing laws, particularly regarding enforcement of federal immigration regulations.
The outcome of this trial remains uncertain, complicated by previous judicial rulings that have favored federal authorities, including the 9th Circuit’s decision regarding troop deployment. Moreover, the military’s legal authority concerning domestic law enforcement actions continues to invoke debate, underscoring concerns about federal overreach.
Following the trial, several scenarios may emerge depending on the ruling made by Judge Breyer. His previous inclination was to support California’s position, yet higher courts’ interventions reflect the ongoing complexities within the legal framework governing military involvement in civilian operations.
As the trial progresses, the broader implications for the military’s role in domestic affairs become increasingly pressing, especially concerning the control exerted by state versus federal law, while the Department of Homeland Security remains the principal authority on immigration enforcement amidst these contentious developments.
This legal battle stands as a reflection of the fractured relationship between state and federal government, particularly in the context of public safety, civil rights, and military involvement within civilian environments.
image source from：calmatters
